Browse content similar to 23/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
Hello and welcome to
the Daily Politics. | 0:00:36 | 0:00:39 | |
In Yorkshire with Theresa May this
morning, it's all smiles. | 0:00:39 | 0:00:43 | |
But are Philip Hammond's Budget
promises to cut stamp duty | 0:00:43 | 0:00:45 | |
for first-time buyers | 0:00:45 | 0:00:46 | |
and the three billion for Brexit
preparations being overshadowed | 0:00:46 | 0:00:49 | |
by bleak economic forecasts? | 0:00:49 | 0:00:53 | |
The gloomy news was delivered
to Mr Hammond | 0:00:53 | 0:00:56 | |
by the Office
for Budget Responsibility. | 0:00:56 | 0:00:59 | |
Dragged down by low productivity, | 0:00:59 | 0:01:01 | |
Britain will grow far
slower than expected. | 0:01:01 | 0:01:06 | |
We speak to their chairman,
Robert Chote, about the worst | 0:01:06 | 0:01:08 | |
downgrade since 1983. | 0:01:08 | 0:01:09 | |
But economists don't always
get everything right. | 0:01:09 | 0:01:11 | |
For example, they didn't foresee
the 2008 financial crash. | 0:01:11 | 0:01:17 | |
We debate how reliable economic
computer modelling really is. | 0:01:17 | 0:01:25 | |
I did take the precaution of asking
my right honourable friend to bring | 0:01:25 | 0:01:31 | |
a packet of cough sweets just in
case. | 0:01:31 | 0:01:33 | |
And is it "Funny Phil" now
rather than "Fiscal Phil"? | 0:01:33 | 0:01:36 | |
The Chancellor peppered his Budget
statement with a series of jokes, | 0:01:36 | 0:01:38 | |
but did they add to his productivity
in delivering the Budget? | 0:01:38 | 0:01:44 | |
All that in the next hour | 0:01:44 | 0:01:46 | |
and with us for the whole
of the programme today is someone | 0:01:46 | 0:01:49 | |
who probably enjoys Budget Day | 0:01:49 | 0:01:51 | |
in the way the rest
of us enjoy Christmas - | 0:01:51 | 0:01:53 | |
the economist Linda Yueh. | 0:01:53 | 0:01:54 | |
Welcome to the programme. | 0:01:54 | 0:01:58 | |
It looks as if Philip Hammond has
overcome the short-term political | 0:01:58 | 0:02:01 | |
challenge of delivering
a controversy-free Budget. | 0:02:01 | 0:02:03 | |
Yet while the Chancellor has
steadied the Tory ship, | 0:02:03 | 0:02:06 | |
for now at least, the British public | 0:02:06 | 0:02:08 | |
may well feel much
more gloomy today. | 0:02:08 | 0:02:11 | |
The dire state of the public
finances - | 0:02:11 | 0:02:13 | |
and the growth
forecasts in particular - | 0:02:13 | 0:02:16 | |
provided him with little headroom
to go on a spending spree. | 0:02:16 | 0:02:22 | |
But he did find money to scrap stamp
duty for the majority of first-time | 0:02:22 | 0:02:26 | |
buyers and also to set aside
£3 billion for preparations | 0:02:26 | 0:02:29 | |
for the UK to leave the EU. | 0:02:29 | 0:02:32 | |
Well, earlier this morning, | 0:02:32 | 0:02:33 | |
the Prime Minister was
asked what she thought | 0:02:33 | 0:02:35 | |
of Philip Hammond's performance. | 0:02:35 | 0:02:42 | |
The Chancellor did a very good job
yesterday. He was setting out how | 0:02:42 | 0:02:46 | |
Willie will ensure we have an
economy fit for the future. But the | 0:02:46 | 0:02:49 | |
Chancellor and I agree that what the
Budget was about was jobs for people | 0:02:49 | 0:02:53 | |
up and down the country. It was
about insuring people are in work | 0:02:53 | 0:02:57 | |
with that income for their family.
It's about building the homes that | 0:02:57 | 0:03:00 | |
they need, and it's about ensuring
that we seize the opportunities for | 0:03:00 | 0:03:03 | |
the future. Linda Yueh, what were
your impressions of the Budget? I | 0:03:03 | 0:03:13 | |
was certainly worried about how
significantly downgraded economic | 0:03:13 | 0:03:16 | |
growth was, and this came on top of
the fact that inflation is expected | 0:03:16 | 0:03:20 | |
to be higher than 3%. So the economy
is only going at 1.5% for the next | 0:03:20 | 0:03:27 | |
five years, and we have high
inflation. That is really going to | 0:03:27 | 0:03:30 | |
squeeze incomes. That is why this
Budget was a real change in course | 0:03:30 | 0:03:34 | |
for the government. In other words,
almost everybody I can recall, and | 0:03:34 | 0:03:38 | |
it is a bit like Christmas like me
when it comes to Budget Day(!), they | 0:03:38 | 0:03:43 | |
have always stressed how every
Budget is fiscally neutral, so money | 0:03:43 | 0:03:50 | |
raised is by cutting taxes, but in
this case they wanted to stimulate | 0:03:50 | 0:03:58 | |
the economy. In 2019-20, we were
expecting to run a Budget surplus of | 0:03:58 | 0:04:06 | |
£10 billion. But now after this
Budget, or going to have a Budget | 0:04:06 | 0:04:10 | |
deficit of £35 billion. Half of that
is because growth has become so slow | 0:04:10 | 0:04:15 | |
that we won't get as much tax
revenue. But half of that is because | 0:04:15 | 0:04:20 | |
I don't think the Chancellor has any
choice but to try to spend more in | 0:04:20 | 0:04:24 | |
order to raise growth. And by this
measure, we will not have a Budget | 0:04:24 | 0:04:29 | |
surplus until 2030. So he has
abandoned the idea of getting to a | 0:04:29 | 0:04:35 | |
surplus. If we remember, George
Osborne said we would eliminate the | 0:04:35 | 0:04:39 | |
deficit by 2015. So it is going to
be 15 years late. But in your mind, | 0:04:39 | 0:04:45 | |
did he have to add to borrowing in
some way in order to stimulate the | 0:04:45 | 0:04:50 | |
economy? I think he does. The main
problem with slow growth is that it | 0:04:50 | 0:04:58 | |
makes your Budget deficit worse.
Slow growth means there is less tax | 0:04:58 | 0:05:01 | |
revenue. So a lot of what he is
spending is on investment to boost | 0:05:01 | 0:05:08 | |
productivity. Another big portion of
what he is spending it on is to put | 0:05:08 | 0:05:12 | |
out fires around the NHS, preparing
for Brexit and houses, which is | 0:05:12 | 0:05:16 | |
important. If he doesn't raise
growth, some may wonder why he | 0:05:16 | 0:05:23 | |
didn't do more, why he is allowing
the economy to go into the doldrums | 0:05:23 | 0:05:28 | |
at a much lower growth rate for the
next five years. We are joined now | 0:05:28 | 0:05:33 | |
by the #'s political editor Tom
Newton Dunn and Guardian columnist | 0:05:33 | 0:05:37 | |
Polly Toynbee. | 0:05:37 | 0:05:42 | |
Tom Newton Dunn, your newspaper and
the Daily Telegraph give the | 0:05:42 | 0:05:49 | |
Chancellor relatively favourable
responses to the Budget. Why, when | 0:05:49 | 0:05:52 | |
the UK will have one of the slowest
rate of growth in the G7 and | 0:05:52 | 0:05:58 | |
productivity has been downgraded?
Relatively is the key point. We are | 0:05:58 | 0:06:01 | |
not happy with everything he did
yesterday. In terms of the bigger | 0:06:01 | 0:06:07 | |
point you have heard from your guest
in the studio, much of the problems | 0:06:07 | 0:06:16 | |
faced by the Chancellor are not of
his own making. It is the biggest | 0:06:16 | 0:06:20 | |
productivity downgrade since records
began in the biggest flat-lining of | 0:06:20 | 0:06:24 | |
productivity since before the battle
of Waterloo, since 1812 full | 0:06:24 | 0:06:27 | |
stoppages out of his control. So I
would agree with that analysis. I am | 0:06:27 | 0:06:33 | |
not sure he had much choice. He had
to spend that massive £26 billion | 0:06:33 | 0:06:37 | |
war chest he built up, the rainy day
Budget for tough times for Brexit, | 0:06:37 | 0:06:46 | |
which begs the question, what on
earth is the government going to do | 0:06:46 | 0:06:49 | |
next? If you look at the path of
deficit reduction now, it is barely | 0:06:49 | 0:06:53 | |
going down. The deficit is still
going to be 35 billion in a few | 0:06:53 | 0:06:57 | |
years' time. So I think it is
slightly dire straits now. This was | 0:06:57 | 0:07:03 | |
an action by the Chancellor to keep
the government afloat in the short | 0:07:03 | 0:07:08 | |
term, prime pump in all the money he
had into the economy to see what | 0:07:08 | 0:07:12 | |
happens. He was even borrowing out
of his departmental spending | 0:07:12 | 0:07:16 | |
reserve. He was taking 2 billion out
of that to plough into the economy. | 0:07:16 | 0:07:21 | |
So it looks like he has done
everything he can and it is in our | 0:07:21 | 0:07:24 | |
case of waiting to see if it works.
And there is of course the politics | 0:07:24 | 0:07:28 | |
behind that. We will come to that in
a moment. Polly Toynbee, £25 billion | 0:07:28 | 0:07:33 | |
of new spending. Will that be
welcomed by Labour? It is an | 0:07:33 | 0:07:39 | |
incredibly small sum. We are where
we are because of what this | 0:07:39 | 0:07:42 | |
government decided to do. If you
look at the growth rate, it was | 0:07:42 | 0:07:46 | |
going well when George Osborne took
over. But from his very first Budget | 0:07:46 | 0:07:50 | |
in June 2010, growth fell off a
cliff and never recovered. That is | 0:07:50 | 0:07:54 | |
what happens if you have an
austerity Budget and if you cut into | 0:07:54 | 0:07:58 | |
the headwinds of a recession, and it
got worse and worse. The longest, as | 0:07:58 | 0:08:04 | |
Tom says, that we have ever had, for
the very reason of taking this | 0:08:04 | 0:08:09 | |
antique Ainslie in view. Keynes
would have said to the | 0:08:09 | 0:08:13 | |
counterintuitive thing, to borrow
and spend into a recession. Growth | 0:08:13 | 0:08:18 | |
is what pays off your debt. Growth
and productivity are the only things | 0:08:18 | 0:08:25 | |
that can pay off your debt. So you
have to borrow, like a family would | 0:08:25 | 0:08:28 | |
for a mortgage, in order to increase
your wealth in the longer run. | 0:08:28 | 0:08:33 | |
Politically, let's talk about that,
Tom. He has survived. He hasn't | 0:08:33 | 0:08:38 | |
tripped up on a banana skin, which
he did earlier in the year with his | 0:08:38 | 0:08:42 | |
cut of national insurance
contributions for the self-employed. | 0:08:42 | 0:08:45 | |
Was that the sole aim, to keep his
job and therefore keep the | 0:08:45 | 0:08:48 | |
government going? Yes, not just to
keep his job, but also to keep | 0:08:48 | 0:08:52 | |
Theresa May in Number Ten. It was a
fascinating political U-turn | 0:08:52 | 0:09:00 | |
yesterday, from Fiscal Phil, the man
who prides himself on having a tough | 0:09:00 | 0:09:07 | |
hand on government spending across
all the departments from the MoD to | 0:09:07 | 0:09:09 | |
the Foreign Office, now a year on,
he is spending like Corbyn. | 0:09:09 | 0:09:13 | |
Everything he can get. He is not
spending the way Labour had | 0:09:13 | 0:09:19 | |
proposed. Polly should be delighted.
She's muffling her delight. It is a | 0:09:19 | 0:09:25 | |
very small sum. When he says 15
billion more for housing, it turns | 0:09:25 | 0:09:29 | |
out that it is over five years. It
will build very few homes. | 0:09:29 | 0:09:34 | |
Overnight, people have been
analysing some carefully. When it | 0:09:34 | 0:09:38 | |
comes to Universal Credit, 300
million gets you almost nowhere in | 0:09:38 | 0:09:41 | |
the appalling state of people moving
on to Universal Credit. These are | 0:09:41 | 0:09:46 | |
little token sums. Those who didn't
follow them closely cheered on his | 0:09:46 | 0:09:51 | |
side of the House because it sounded
good. A bit of something for | 0:09:51 | 0:09:56 | |
everyone, a tiny bit for the NHS,
less than half of what it needed. I | 0:09:56 | 0:10:02 | |
agree that he hasn't spent things in
the right way, if that is what Polly | 0:10:02 | 0:10:06 | |
is saying. I'm not sure where he
could spend more, because if we | 0:10:06 | 0:10:10 | |
borrow more, the deficit will go up
the market would lose credibility | 0:10:10 | 0:10:14 | |
and then we are into a sovereign
debt crisis. The problem is that | 0:10:14 | 0:10:19 | |
they spent in the short term and
they have sought that Universal | 0:10:19 | 0:10:23 | |
Credit and given money to the NHS,
but they have gone nowhere near | 0:10:23 | 0:10:28 | |
tackling other problems. I was
deeply unimpressed by the housing | 0:10:28 | 0:10:32 | |
measures. And also social care is
another huge problem. They're all | 0:10:32 | 0:10:37 | |
the great demographic problems
facing the country which were left | 0:10:37 | 0:10:39 | |
and tackled and getting worse by the
day. At some stage, some government | 0:10:39 | 0:10:44 | |
will have to tackle them. Finally,
Polly Toynbee, on trust with the | 0:10:44 | 0:10:49 | |
economy, bearing all of that in mind
from both of you, why is it that got | 0:10:49 | 0:10:56 | |
the Budget, the Shadow Chancellor
and Labour leader were trusted less | 0:10:56 | 0:10:59 | |
on the economy than Hammond and May?
I don't think that will last long as | 0:10:59 | 0:11:04 | |
people unpick this Budget. But more
to the point, overshadowing all | 0:11:04 | 0:11:08 | |
this, despite this appalling long
recession which has been created by | 0:11:08 | 0:11:11 | |
government austerity policies, we
have Brexit and what is this | 0:11:11 | 0:11:17 | |
government's fault on the fault of
the fanatics on its front benches | 0:11:17 | 0:11:20 | |
and the backbenchers. Is it not the
fault of the people who voted for | 0:11:20 | 0:11:24 | |
it? Maybe, but they were lied to by
the likes of you and they still are. | 0:11:24 | 0:11:30 | |
They would say there were lies on
both sides, Polly Toynbee. It is | 0:11:30 | 0:11:35 | |
turning out that the Remain side
were painfully right about the | 0:11:35 | 0:11:38 | |
dreadful economic consequences and
much worse to come. Thank you both | 0:11:38 | 0:11:41 | |
very much. | 0:11:41 | 0:11:42 | |
Now it's time for our daily quiz. | 0:11:42 | 0:11:44 | |
Shadow Education Secretary Angela
Rayner has announced on Twitter | 0:11:44 | 0:11:49 | |
that she has just passed a rather
important milestone in her life, | 0:11:49 | 0:11:52 | |
so our question for today is...what? | 0:11:52 | 0:11:53 | |
a) She's just bought her first
house, b) She's got a degree, | 0:11:53 | 0:11:56 | |
c) She's passed her driving test
or She's become a grandmother? | 0:11:56 | 0:12:06 | |
If it is her first home, she can
benefit from the stamp duty measure. | 0:12:07 | 0:12:10 | |
At the end of the show, Linda
will give us the correct answer. | 0:12:10 | 0:12:13 | |
So, it was the gloomy
outlook for the UK economy | 0:12:13 | 0:12:16 | |
which overshadowed much
of Philip Hammond's Budget. | 0:12:16 | 0:12:17 | |
The official forecasts for the UK
economy are delivered | 0:12:17 | 0:12:19 | |
to the Treasury by the Office
for Budget Responsibility. | 0:12:19 | 0:12:24 | |
The OBR was established in 2010
by then-Chancellor George Osborne | 0:12:24 | 0:12:27 | |
to end a system under
which the Treasury produced its own | 0:12:27 | 0:12:30 | |
economic growth estimates. | 0:12:30 | 0:12:32 | |
Philip Hammond yesterday
delivered their latest | 0:12:32 | 0:12:33 | |
downgraded predictions as part
of his Budget statement. | 0:12:33 | 0:12:43 | |
Regrettably, our productivity
performance continues to disappoint. | 0:12:43 | 0:12:46 | |
The OBR has assumed, at each
of the last 16 fiscal events, | 0:12:46 | 0:12:49 | |
that productivity growth
would return to its pre-crisis trend | 0:12:49 | 0:12:51 | |
of about 2% a year, | 0:12:51 | 0:12:52 | |
but it has
remained stubbornly flat. | 0:12:52 | 0:13:02 | |
So today, they revised down
the outlook for productivity growth, | 0:13:03 | 0:13:05 | |
business investment and GDP growth
across the forecast period. | 0:13:05 | 0:13:12 | |
The OBR now expects to see
GDP grow 1.5% in 2017, | 0:13:12 | 0:13:14 | |
1.4% in 2018, 1.3% in 2019-2020,
before picking back up to 1.5% | 0:13:14 | 0:13:18 | |
and finally 1.6% in 2022. | 0:13:18 | 0:13:27 | |
The Chairman of the Office
for Budget Responsibility, or OBR, | 0:13:27 | 0:13:29 | |
Robert Chote is here with us now. | 0:13:29 | 0:13:38 | |
You live for these events, but grim,
Dyer, dismal, these are some of the | 0:13:38 | 0:13:42 | |
words being used this morning to
describe Britain's economic | 0:13:42 | 0:13:45 | |
forecast. In your view, how bad is
it? Basically, the economy has been | 0:13:45 | 0:13:52 | |
growing less quickly than expected
this year, which extends the story | 0:13:52 | 0:13:56 | |
for 2017. More importantly, we have
taken a more pessimistic view over | 0:13:56 | 0:13:59 | |
the next five years. That is a
reflection of the fact that growth | 0:13:59 | 0:14:03 | |
in productivity, which is the amount
of output you get out of every hour | 0:14:03 | 0:14:07 | |
that people work, has been growing
very slowly over the last ten years | 0:14:07 | 0:14:10 | |
relative to the three or four
decades that came before it. A while | 0:14:10 | 0:14:14 | |
back, people would have said you can
probably now that down to specific | 0:14:14 | 0:14:18 | |
reasons related to the financial
crisis. But as this period of | 0:14:18 | 0:14:22 | |
weakness has got longer and longer
the crisis recedes further into | 0:14:22 | 0:14:27 | |
history, some of those explanations
fall away. Therefore, we have | 0:14:27 | 0:14:30 | |
decided to place more weight on this
relatively weak period as a guide to | 0:14:30 | 0:14:34 | |
what is coming. Another reason for
that is that this is also a global | 0:14:34 | 0:14:38 | |
problem and not just a domestic one.
If you look at the way in which our | 0:14:38 | 0:14:41 | |
American counterparts have been
changing their forecasts, the | 0:14:41 | 0:14:45 | |
Congressional Budget office, there
is a similar pattern. But you have | 0:14:45 | 0:14:48 | |
revised Britain's growth forecast
down substantially since March. | 0:14:48 | 0:14:51 | |
Let's look at the graph. What has
changed since then? You were more | 0:14:51 | 0:15:07 | |
optimistic just months ago, you
would've had those figures then? | 0:15:07 | 0:15:09 | |
When you are looking over this
period, you have to make judgments | 0:15:09 | 0:15:15 | |
as you are going along, and do we
see are there reasons why it'll pick | 0:15:15 | 0:15:19 | |
up? You don't want to focus on the
latest data, we have seen false | 0:15:19 | 0:15:24 | |
dawns come and go. It is more a
question of looking back at this | 0:15:24 | 0:15:28 | |
remarkably unusual period in recent
economic history and making a | 0:15:28 | 0:15:30 | |
response to that. The economy will
grow at less than 2% for the a least | 0:15:30 | 0:15:34 | |
the next five years, how much
smaller will the economy be over the | 0:15:34 | 0:15:37 | |
next five years? Well, I mean, you
basically summed it up there. We | 0:15:37 | 0:15:42 | |
used to get the idea that you would
expect large, mature industrial | 0:15:42 | 0:15:47 | |
economies like the UK to grow by a
bit over 2%, maybe 2.5% a year and | 0:15:47 | 0:15:52 | |
at the moment we are assuming 1.5%
is, as it were the new normal. | 0:15:52 | 0:15:56 | |
Obviously you can add up the
ditches, however many years you go | 0:15:56 | 0:16:01 | |
out to get as large a number as you
like. How much will be taken out of | 0:16:01 | 0:16:04 | |
the economy? The figures of £65
billion taken out of the economy | 0:16:04 | 0:16:08 | |
over the next five years, are those
the figures that you recognise? | 0:16:08 | 0:16:12 | |
Well, the potential size of the
economy is about 2% smaller at the | 0:16:12 | 0:16:17 | |
end of the forecast horizon than it
would otherwise be. Obviously you | 0:16:17 | 0:16:20 | |
can get as large a cash number as
you like by moving out and making | 0:16:20 | 0:16:24 | |
the comparison. Right, truth is,
forecasts are rarely correct. You | 0:16:24 | 0:16:28 | |
said so yourself. And they are
routinely revised. It is entirely | 0:16:28 | 0:16:34 | |
possible the Chancellor will prove
you wrong? It is entirely possible | 0:16:34 | 0:16:38 | |
the outcome is a 50/50 chance as to
whether it is higher or lower. One | 0:16:38 | 0:16:42 | |
of the things we do in the report is
run alternative scone oar yes, sir | 0:16:42 | 0:16:47 | |
for public finances on the basis of
what happens if productivity growth | 0:16:47 | 0:16:51 | |
revives to the rates we saw prior to
the financial crisis and what | 0:16:51 | 0:16:54 | |
happens if basically the last ten
years are the new normal? Now we are | 0:16:54 | 0:17:00 | |
not as pessimistic, there are techno
pessimists out there who say we've | 0:17:00 | 0:17:06 | |
had three industrial revolutions
that's your lot you will not see the | 0:17:06 | 0:17:08 | |
revival in growth. I don't think we
are in that camp. There are reasons | 0:17:08 | 0:17:12 | |
to think productivity will pick up,
unemployment is falling, that will | 0:17:12 | 0:17:16 | |
produce more pressure on firms to
work things more productively so we | 0:17:16 | 0:17:20 | |
don't give up hope of some recovery
there. That means, the forecast | 0:17:20 | 0:17:25 | |
could be more optimistic. It could
be worse, then? I think there is a | 0:17:25 | 0:17:29 | |
probability it could go either way.
To give awe rule of them in terms of | 0:17:29 | 0:17:33 | |
what the growth rates mean for the
size of the British economy. You | 0:17:33 | 0:17:36 | |
take the number 70, divide by the
growth rate that gives you the | 0:17:36 | 0:17:38 | |
number of years it takes for an
economy to double in size. So the | 0:17:38 | 0:17:42 | |
British economy grows, at say 2%,
let's keep the maths simple. 7 #0e | 0:17:42 | 0:17:46 | |
divided by two, we expect it to
double in size in 35 years, if it | 0:17:46 | 0:17:52 | |
grows closer to 1%, the economy
doubles in size in 70 years, that's | 0:17:52 | 0:17:57 | |
why the small ditcheses in growth
rates have massive impact in terms | 0:17:57 | 0:18:00 | |
of our living standard. Right, let's
have a look at Brexit. You said | 0:18:00 | 0:18:05 | |
yesterday the Government provided
the OBR with no meaningful basis on | 0:18:05 | 0:18:08 | |
which to form a judgment on Brexit.
Do your forecasts take into account | 0:18:08 | 0:18:13 | |
Brexit or not? They did. We made an
adjustment in the first forecast we | 0:18:13 | 0:18:19 | |
produced after the vote to Leave so.
That was the November forecast last | 0:18:19 | 0:18:22 | |
year. And we haven't basically
changed the broad judgments around | 0:18:22 | 0:18:26 | |
Brexit, both in terms. Process, and
in terms of the sorts of | 0:18:26 | 0:18:30 | |
implications it would have for
things like productivity, trade | 0:18:30 | 0:18:34 | |
intensity, migration we did then. So
the announcements we made or the | 0:18:34 | 0:18:38 | |
updated forecast yesterday is much
more about looking at this | 0:18:38 | 0:18:42 | |
historical pattern, the fact that
this is a common global feature, | 0:18:42 | 0:18:45 | |
rather than that we have looked
again specifically at Brexit and | 0:18:45 | 0:18:48 | |
said - we think the outcome of this
will be different from what we | 0:18:48 | 0:18:51 | |
thought a few months ago. What
information did the Government give | 0:18:51 | 0:18:55 | |
you on Brexit? We had and we have
asked for no more than what is the | 0:18:55 | 0:19:00 | |
in the public domain. I wouldn't
come want to come here and say - of | 0:19:00 | 0:19:04 | |
we have produced this set of numbers
that the Government has told me | 0:19:04 | 0:19:07 | |
something about Brexit I can't
share. The reason we ask this, when | 0:19:07 | 0:19:10 | |
we are preparing the forecast it is
useful for us to know if the | 0:19:10 | 0:19:13 | |
Government is going to put into the
public domain new information that | 0:19:13 | 0:19:16 | |
may be relevant, which is why we
ask. And they are not? Well as you | 0:19:16 | 0:19:21 | |
see we have the information that's
available to everybody else and we | 0:19:21 | 0:19:24 | |
wouldn't want to be doing tonight
basis of private information. Well | 0:19:24 | 0:19:28 | |
it is not meaningful then, to use
your words f stlnt enough | 0:19:28 | 0:19:32 | |
information in the public domain to
make that judgment? Well the | 0:19:32 | 0:19:35 | |
judgment, as I say, is based on
series of broadbrush assumptions | 0:19:35 | 0:19:40 | |
Which? Think would be consist went a
wide variety of potential outcomes. | 0:19:40 | 0:19:45 | |
Under most circumstances, you would
expect import growth and export | 0:19:45 | 0:19:48 | |
growth to be weaker for a period of
time than they otherwise would be, | 0:19:48 | 0:19:52 | |
that business investment will be
weaker because people will be | 0:19:52 | 0:19:54 | |
uncertain for the period that they
don't know what the end point is | 0:19:54 | 0:19:59 | |
going to be but what we don't done
is come up with a envelope and the | 0:19:59 | 0:20:03 | |
last page conclusion is where we end
up with the negotiations and pinning | 0:20:03 | 0:20:06 | |
the economics numbers to that.
Right. Probably wise. Jacob | 0:20:06 | 0:20:11 | |
Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP says the OBI,
yourselves work on false | 0:20:11 | 0:20:18 | |
assumptionless given to you by the
Treasury, he would like you to be | 0:20:18 | 0:20:22 | |
more optimistic on the tudgets of
Brexit? Well, I wouldn't describe it | 0:20:22 | 0:20:26 | |
as false assumptions. I think Jacob
would take the view that Brexit | 0:20:26 | 0:20:30 | |
creates the opportunity for a whole
variety of other policy changes that | 0:20:30 | 0:20:34 | |
this gives a greater freedom to do
that which you could then | 0:20:34 | 0:20:37 | |
incorporate. Obviously we are basing
our forecasts on what current policy | 0:20:37 | 0:20:40 | |
S so this is one of the reasons why
it is difficult to nail it down very | 0:20:40 | 0:20:45 | |
precisely, if we get close to a
particular outcome, the Government | 0:20:45 | 0:20:49 | |
may announce other sets of
accompanying policy changes and | 0:20:49 | 0:20:53 | |
maybe Jacob sees scope in those to
provide a better outcome. Do you | 0:20:53 | 0:20:58 | |
have any sympathy with what Jacob
Rees-Mogg says in terms of the | 0:20:58 | 0:21:01 | |
assumptions that both the Treasury
and Office for Budget Responsibility | 0:21:01 | 0:21:04 | |
are working from? I think it is very
difficult for them. I thi, as Robert | 0:21:04 | 0:21:08 | |
says, you can only work with the
information that is currently given. | 0:21:08 | 0:21:12 | |
Their credibility would be in doubt
if they were to, I think deviate | 0:21:12 | 0:21:15 | |
from that and so, in their
forecasts, as we just said a moment | 0:21:15 | 0:21:19 | |
ago, it could be much better or it
could be much worse. It is based on | 0:21:19 | 0:21:24 | |
productivity but an element of t I
would surely think is also Brexit | 0:21:24 | 0:21:27 | |
because obviously the outcome could
be better or could be worse, based | 0:21:27 | 0:21:33 | |
on however the negotiations go.
There was one phrase, if I may, if I | 0:21:33 | 0:21:36 | |
could pick up with Robert that I
found in your report, it is the idea | 0:21:36 | 0:21:41 | |
of fiscal illusion. This is a really
rather, I think important concept | 0:21:41 | 0:21:46 | |
because we have been talking about
the Budget and the Government says | 0:21:46 | 0:21:53 | |
they will meet their fiscal target
of 2% of GDP of the structural | 0:21:53 | 0:21:58 | |
deficit but they have done by that
selling shares in RBS and in little | 0:21:58 | 0:22:02 | |
bit of what you describe yourself as
fiscal illusion. Does that actually | 0:22:02 | 0:22:06 | |
mean we shouldn't put too much
credence by this illusion that's | 0:22:06 | 0:22:10 | |
getting us to our deficit target?
Well I think it is always very | 0:22:10 | 0:22:12 | |
important. The fiscal illusion is
basically getting at the idea that | 0:22:12 | 0:22:16 | |
there are some changes which can
make the official numbers you are | 0:22:16 | 0:22:19 | |
looking at and that the Government
maybe targeted better, without | 0:22:19 | 0:22:23 | |
fundamentally changing the
underlying health of the public | 0:22:23 | 0:22:25 | |
finances and a key part of our job
is to raise a flag when those sorts | 0:22:25 | 0:22:29 | |
of things happen. Asset sales are a
very good example. If you sell | 0:22:29 | 0:22:35 | |
shares in RBS, for example, you end
up with that reducing the | 0:22:35 | 0:22:38 | |
Government's stock of debt. But in
fact if a Government owns an asset | 0:22:38 | 0:22:43 | |
and sells it for roughly what it is
worth. It is no better or worse off, | 0:22:43 | 0:22:47 | |
it has swapped one asset, shares in
a bank, for a lump of cash. We need | 0:22:47 | 0:22:59 | |
to flag that up. The other big...
Housing associations. The statical | 0:22:59 | 0:23:04 | |
decision to count them as part of
the private sector rather than | 0:23:04 | 0:23:07 | |
public sector but do we really
believe the Government's behaviour | 0:23:07 | 0:23:11 | |
if the housing association sector
got into difficulties would be | 0:23:11 | 0:23:14 | |
markedly difficult because a
newspaper of statisticians in | 0:23:14 | 0:23:16 | |
Newport have applied the
international rules and concluded it | 0:23:16 | 0:23:19 | |
is one side of the boundary or the
other? Is that the illusion? Well, | 0:23:19 | 0:23:24 | |
it helps in both reducing the level
of Government borrowing and the | 0:23:24 | 0:23:28 | |
level of Government debt because you
are taking off the borrowing and the | 0:23:28 | 0:23:32 | |
debt of the housing association. The
Government has been remarkedly | 0:23:32 | 0:23:37 | |
candid about why it has taken the
measures in deregulating the sector | 0:23:37 | 0:23:42 | |
to do that. They gave evidence to
the House of Lords to say - we are | 0:23:42 | 0:23:48 | |
doing this to persuade the
statisticians to get this off the | 0:23:48 | 0:23:50 | |
books. Criticising the Government's
stamp doubty property, you say house | 0:23:50 | 0:23:57 | |
price also go up. Do you accept it
is quite a political statement to | 0:23:57 | 0:24:02 | |
make within hours of the Budget
being delivered Its not a criticism. | 0:24:02 | 0:24:07 | |
Now not saying it shouldn't happen.
It is explaining how it'll feed | 0:24:07 | 0:24:11 | |
through into the economic and
fiscaler if cast. You can certainly | 0:24:11 | 0:24:14 | |
take the view that the policy is a
good or bad policy. We have to | 0:24:14 | 0:24:18 | |
describe what impact it has. But
that is a critcy. If you say the | 0:24:18 | 0:24:23 | |
bhan gainers are people who own
their own proort when it is supposed | 0:24:23 | 0:24:26 | |
to help first time buyers who
haven't been able to get up and that | 0:24:26 | 0:24:29 | |
house prices will go up and act as a
stimulus. That's a criticism No it | 0:24:29 | 0:24:35 | |
is a statement of the facts. If
house prices go up. It gives first | 0:24:35 | 0:24:42 | |
time buyers who purchase properties
that they otherwise wouldn't have | 0:24:42 | 0:24:45 | |
blown able to afford but they are
more expensive and I expect with | 0:24:45 | 0:24:50 | |
#23is time buyers, it is the act to
get on the ladder even if the | 0:24:50 | 0:24:55 | |
property is more expensive, than a
good thing about that policy. I | 0:24:55 | 0:24:58 | |
wouldn't read it that as a criticism
of the policy it is a criticism of | 0:24:58 | 0:25:03 | |
what it does. | 0:25:03 | 0:25:09 | |
The growth forecasts may have been
revised down but the Chancellor | 0:25:09 | 0:25:11 | |
still had some money to give away. | 0:25:11 | 0:25:13 | |
Let's have a look
at the key policies. | 0:25:13 | 0:25:15 | |
Philip Hammond set aside £3 billion
over next two years to prepare | 0:25:15 | 0:25:18 | |
the UK for every possible outcome
as the UK leaves the European Union. | 0:25:18 | 0:25:21 | |
For housing the Chancellor
outlined a £44 billion | 0:25:21 | 0:25:28 | |
government support package,
to help meet a government target | 0:25:28 | 0:25:31 | |
of building 300,000 new homes a year
by the middle of next decade. | 0:25:31 | 0:25:34 | |
And stamp duty will be abolished
immediately for first-time buyers | 0:25:34 | 0:25:41 | |
purchasing properties
worth up £300,000. | 0:25:41 | 0:25:42 | |
The young person's railcard will be
extended to 26-30-year-olds | 0:25:42 | 0:25:46 | |
from next year, saving a third
on off-peak railfares. | 0:25:46 | 0:25:50 | |
The NHS in England will receive
an extra £2.8 billion worth of extra | 0:25:50 | 0:25:53 | |
funding for front line services. | 0:25:53 | 0:25:55 | |
With £350 million available
immediately to address | 0:25:55 | 0:25:57 | |
pressures over this winter. | 0:25:57 | 0:26:06 | |
The Chancellor proclaimed "maths
for everyone" with £600 for each | 0:26:10 | 0:26:12 | |
additional pupil taking A level
or Core maths. | 0:26:12 | 0:26:14 | |
A £40 million teacher training
fund will be established | 0:26:14 | 0:26:16 | |
for underperforming schools
in England, working out | 0:26:16 | 0:26:18 | |
at £1,000 a teacher. | 0:26:18 | 0:26:19 | |
And changes to Universal Credit
to bring the overall waiting time | 0:26:19 | 0:26:22 | |
down from six weeks to five. | 0:26:22 | 0:26:26 | |
Joining us are the Justice
Minister Dominic Raab | 0:26:26 | 0:26:28 | |
and the Shadow Economic Secretary
to the Treasury. | 0:26:28 | 0:26:34 | |
Welcome to both of you. Jonathan
Reynolds, I didn't say your name, | 0:26:34 | 0:26:40 | |
which is important, of course.
Dominic Raab, Philip Hammond started | 0:26:40 | 0:26:45 | |
his statement on the Budget
yesterday saying will - there is a | 0:26:45 | 0:26:49 | |
bright future for Britain. Are the
resolution association disagree say | 0:26:49 | 0:26:55 | |
there'll be 17 years of pay
stagnation. Interestingly the | 0:26:55 | 0:26:59 | |
Resolution Foundation also said that
those on the lowest I parks the | 0:26:59 | 0:27:02 | |
proportion on the lowest pay is at
its lowest level since the 1980s. I | 0:27:02 | 0:27:07 | |
think we have had some headwinds. I
think the economists are not quite | 0:27:07 | 0:27:10 | |
clear between themselves as to some
of the forecasts which is | 0:27:10 | 0:27:12 | |
interesting, the conversation you
have just had. The reality is there | 0:27:12 | 0:27:15 | |
are all these predictions of doom
Ian gloom and precession and we have | 0:27:15 | 0:27:20 | |
modest growth inhe has put in a
modest stimulus in and things like | 0:27:20 | 0:27:25 | |
the £08 billion extra in partnership
with the sector on tech and R&D that | 0:27:25 | 0:27:31 | |
will help boost in the long-term
productivity. He dealt with the | 0:27:31 | 0:27:35 | |
issues around here and now,
extending personal allowance, fuel | 0:27:35 | 0:27:41 | |
duty and laid foundations to deal
with the productivity. I think that | 0:27:41 | 0:27:44 | |
compares the credible, balanced
approach he took with John McDonnell | 0:27:44 | 0:27:47 | |
this morning on the Today programme
saying spending and borrowing more | 0:27:47 | 0:27:52 | |
pays for itself. Right, but wages
won't return to the 2007 levels, | 0:27:52 | 0:27:58 | |
pre-crash levels until 2025. That
squeeze is going to really hurt | 0:27:58 | 0:28:03 | |
families. And it's the longest fall
in living standards since records | 0:28:03 | 0:28:07 | |
began. Is that something you are
proud of? I think really conscious | 0:28:07 | 0:28:12 | |
of the priors on low and middle
income fwamlies but I would say the | 0:28:12 | 0:28:16 | |
average tax pay letter take home
£1,075, a basic rate taxpayer than | 0:28:16 | 0:28:23 | |
under Labour Government in 2010. We
had that statistics from the | 0:28:23 | 0:28:28 | |
Resolution Foundation, the
proportion... Except one-third of | 0:28:28 | 0:28:30 | |
households, this is what you are
saying the poorest third of | 0:28:30 | 0:28:33 | |
households are set to be more
thanneds 700 a year worse under the | 0:28:33 | 0:28:37 | |
plan? Under the enfundamentals of
the economy. Answer the question I | 0:28:37 | 0:28:41 | |
will answer the first then come
back. Inflation has reached its peak | 0:28:41 | 0:28:45 | |
of 3% in October and is now coming
down, so it'll ease the pressure. It | 0:28:45 | 0:28:51 | |
hasn't If you listen to what the
Bank of England said last week n | 0:28:51 | 0:28:54 | |
October the 3% was the peak and
it'll start to come back down. It | 0:28:54 | 0:28:57 | |
hasn't come down yet I'm in the
doubting there are pressures, but it | 0:28:57 | 0:29:01 | |
is not all doom and gloom and it was
great to here a Conservative | 0:29:01 | 0:29:05 | |
Chancellor who didn't vote for
Brexit say - come on, there is there | 0:29:05 | 0:29:09 | |
are risks, but even greater
opportunities and we will grasp | 0:29:09 | 0:29:11 | |
them. We need candour in this
country. Well -- can do. Well you | 0:29:11 | 0:29:16 | |
talk about can do but he talked
about a bright future for working | 0:29:16 | 0:29:19 | |
families and if they are not looking
forward to wages getting to the | 0:29:19 | 0:29:22 | |
stage they were prethe crash, what
are they going to be looking forward | 0:29:22 | 0:29:25 | |
to? I don't accept that. The
Resolution Foundation is a | 0:29:25 | 0:29:31 | |
think-tank and does good work. And I
have cited them. Cited the bits you | 0:29:31 | 0:29:34 | |
like and not what you don't. Can you
explain that poorest households are | 0:29:34 | 0:29:38 | |
going to be £700 a year worse off?
We went through and it was | 0:29:38 | 0:29:45 | |
interesting hearing Robert Chote
hark back to the crash, but we have | 0:29:45 | 0:29:49 | |
dom through, employment at record
highs, three-quarters new jobs | 0:29:49 | 0:29:53 | |
full-time and on things like the
national living wage, the extension | 0:29:53 | 0:29:57 | |
of the personal allowance,
cancelling the planned fuel duty | 0:29:57 | 0:29:59 | |
hike, we are doing things that deal
with the pressures of the here and | 0:29:59 | 0:30:02 | |
now, but also take the long-term
investment like infrastructure | 0:30:02 | 0:30:07 | |
technology, that will boost wages
through productivity gains. He did | 0:30:07 | 0:30:11 | |
the minimum he could the with
headroom he had which is little when | 0:30:11 | 0:30:14 | |
we look at big figures, you talk
about the national living wage but | 0:30:14 | 0:30:18 | |
George Osborne pledged it would
reach £9 by 2020, that will not | 0:30:18 | 0:30:22 | |
happen now Hold on. We are in 2017,
it is going up to April £7.83. We | 0:30:22 | 0:30:28 | |
have produced that Will approximate
hit £9? Well that's forethe | 0:30:28 | 0:30:33 | |
Chancellor and we've scrutinised
what he said yesterday. We can say | 0:30:33 | 0:30:35 | |
it is going up to £7.83. We are
cutting the amount of income tax | 0:30:35 | 0:30:41 | |
people are pay, the average taxpayer
but over £1,000 each year compared | 0:30:41 | 0:30:44 | |
to 2010 but we have to be balanced
and responsibility. We cannot do as | 0:30:44 | 0:30:47 | |
John McDonnell and Labour said first
thing this morning - by throwing | 0:30:47 | 0:30:51 | |
money at problems, it is not
credible. What he has done in | 0:30:51 | 0:30:55 | |
challenging times is a balanced,
credible approach... | 0:30:55 | 0:31:02 | |
But balance in favour of whom?
Philip Hammond has said he wants to | 0:31:02 | 0:31:08 | |
put £3 billion aside for Brexit
preparations, but only £350 million | 0:31:08 | 0:31:12 | |
extra funding for the NHS this
winter. Which is more important to | 0:31:12 | 0:31:16 | |
you? They are both important. Then
why has Brexit got £3 billion and | 0:31:16 | 0:31:22 | |
the NHS only 350 million? Studies
from a standing start and | 0:31:22 | 0:31:27 | |
contingency plans for Brexit. The
NHS is getting huge amounts of extra | 0:31:27 | 0:31:31 | |
money. Does the NHS not deserve more
money? I think the NHS is getting | 0:31:31 | 0:31:38 | |
extra investment. Not the 4 billion
that Simon Stephens said is | 0:31:38 | 0:31:41 | |
necessary. We have followed Simon
Stephens' route map to this. More | 0:31:41 | 0:31:47 | |
money is going in, but we also need
to reform the NHS. Compared to 2010, | 0:31:47 | 0:31:53 | |
someone is paying two thirds less
income tax. The millionaires are | 0:31:53 | 0:31:58 | |
paying 14% more. Let's look at the
other bits of this balanced | 0:31:58 | 0:32:03 | |
approach, Jonathan Reynolds. Do you
oppose the scrapping of stamp duty | 0:32:03 | 0:32:07 | |
for first-time buyers? If a Labour
government presented the figures we | 0:32:07 | 0:32:10 | |
saw yesterday, Dominic, who I have
tremendous respect for, would be | 0:32:10 | 0:32:13 | |
laying into those figures. The stamp
duty cut was an Ed Miliband policy | 0:32:13 | 0:32:25 | |
originally. It wasn't just his, it
was proposed in your manifesto. So | 0:32:25 | 0:32:30 | |
you support it? Yes, but you have to
combine it with mixed supply. The | 0:32:30 | 0:32:39 | |
beta site, £3 billion, is on the
stamp duty cut. Unless you are | 0:32:39 | 0:32:43 | |
boosting supply % and having more
homes for social rent, it will only | 0:32:43 | 0:32:50 | |
make the situation worse. So how
much more would you spend on | 0:32:50 | 0:32:54 | |
housing? In our investment
programme, we have said we would put | 0:32:54 | 0:32:56 | |
more investment in. The allocation
for housing is 25 billion. The | 0:32:56 | 0:33:01 | |
increase for housing would be 8
billion, because that gives you the | 0:33:01 | 0:33:04 | |
chance to have more homes for social
rent. How many more homes for social | 0:33:04 | 0:33:08 | |
rent would later be proposing?
100,000. So you are going to be | 0:33:08 | 0:33:14 | |
adding to the money that the
government would borrow. Do you | 0:33:14 | 0:33:17 | |
think it is acceptable that the
Shadow Chancellor couldn't cite what | 0:33:17 | 0:33:20 | |
the current levels are in terms of
servicing the debt, never mind what | 0:33:20 | 0:33:23 | |
they would be under Labour? I don't
think it's fair to ask the Shadow | 0:33:23 | 0:33:26 | |
Chancellor to pick out a figure from
the red book. Hang on, which figure | 0:33:26 | 0:33:31 | |
in terms of the current levels of
servicing the debt? The £46 billion. | 0:33:31 | 0:33:37 | |
Then you can do it. Is it acceptable
that the Chancellor can't? There | 0:33:37 | 0:33:43 | |
would be a variability to the cost
of borrowing under a Labour | 0:33:43 | 0:33:45 | |
government. The point that John is
trying to make, which is worth | 0:33:45 | 0:33:49 | |
making, is that if you look at the
crucial topline news in the Budget, | 0:33:49 | 0:33:53 | |
the big downgrade to growth, the
country has to do something | 0:33:53 | 0:33:56 | |
different. And bringing forward
investment into infrastructure, | 0:33:56 | 0:34:00 | |
housing and transport is the right
thing to do. If you look at the long | 0:34:00 | 0:34:03 | |
term effect on the tax base of this
continuing, we will have huge | 0:34:03 | 0:34:08 | |
problems. In terms of money for the
NHS, did you welcome the £2.8 | 0:34:08 | 0:34:13 | |
billion proposal by Philip Hammond?
We want to see more than that. We | 0:34:13 | 0:34:17 | |
want to see something equivalent to
what the NHS itself has said it | 0:34:17 | 0:34:20 | |
needs. It is not always about extra
borrowing, there is also a point | 0:34:20 | 0:34:25 | |
around choices and priorities. More
money going to Brexit that the NHS | 0:34:25 | 0:34:28 | |
does not sound like the right thing
to do. More money going into alcohol | 0:34:28 | 0:34:33 | |
duty than fixing Universal Credit,
those are bad choices. If look at | 0:34:33 | 0:34:39 | |
the envelope the Chancellor had, he
has made poor choices. What do you | 0:34:39 | 0:34:42 | |
say to it being not the right
choices? You have a vast credibility | 0:34:42 | 0:34:49 | |
gap between a balanced approach, yes
we need a stimulus, but with overall | 0:34:49 | 0:34:54 | |
public finances. We have a Labour
Shadow Chancellor who reckons that | 0:34:54 | 0:34:58 | |
spending and borrowing pays for
itself. That is just not credible | 0:34:58 | 0:35:01 | |
and it is dawning on many people
that these are false promises. It is | 0:35:01 | 0:35:05 | |
a con. What was a con about George
Osborne saying he would eliminate | 0:35:05 | 0:35:10 | |
the deficit by 2015 and it will now
not be eliminated until 2031. Well, | 0:35:10 | 0:35:15 | |
that was a target. A target that you
miss every year in terms of | 0:35:15 | 0:35:20 | |
eliminating it. And it was to be £35
billion. When you talk about trust, | 0:35:20 | 0:35:26 | |
what is the point of saying to
people, bear the pain now of | 0:35:26 | 0:35:30 | |
austerity because we are going to
remove it for future generations? It | 0:35:30 | 0:35:33 | |
is still going to be there. Well,
hold on. That is based on | 0:35:33 | 0:35:39 | |
projections made in 2010. We would
say, look at the 3 million new jobs. | 0:35:39 | 0:35:44 | |
Look at the extra money we have made
sure working people have in their | 0:35:44 | 0:35:49 | |
pay packets. Look at the extra
investment in the NHS. If you | 0:35:49 | 0:35:52 | |
compare that what John McDonnell
said this morning he said that | 0:35:52 | 0:35:56 | |
spending and borrowing pays for
itself. That be credible. Is | 0:35:56 | 0:36:03 | |
government spending and borrowing
now paying for itself? The economy | 0:36:03 | 0:36:07 | |
has not hit rock bottom. Our point
is, if you can get a bigger return | 0:36:07 | 0:36:16 | |
for the taxpayer by borrowing at
record low levels, that is something | 0:36:16 | 0:36:20 | |
you should consider. And that was
what was ruled out under the George | 0:36:20 | 0:36:24 | |
Osborne has Charter. Now members of
your Cabinet are coming forward with | 0:36:24 | 0:36:27 | |
plans on housing... But not to say
borrowing pays for itself. You said | 0:36:27 | 0:36:34 | |
earlier that that is perhaps what
Philip Hammond should have done, to | 0:36:34 | 0:36:38 | |
have thrown away the red box and the
red book in terms of constraint and | 0:36:38 | 0:36:41 | |
spent more. I would reconfigure the
red box. The government has not | 0:36:41 | 0:36:48 | |
separated out current spending from
capital spending. The only way to | 0:36:48 | 0:36:53 | |
raise productivity, and it is a
puzzle, but the key thing the Bank | 0:36:53 | 0:36:56 | |
of England identifies is that you
have to raise investment. Investment | 0:36:56 | 0:37:00 | |
in things like hard and soft
infrastructure and human capital, if | 0:37:00 | 0:37:03 | |
you count that as capital spending,
you can borrow at very low rates and | 0:37:03 | 0:37:06 | |
invest in something which will be
paid off in the future. And you can | 0:37:06 | 0:37:10 | |
separate out from current spending
so that you don't scare financial | 0:37:10 | 0:37:12 | |
markets. That is something where he
could have done more, given how dire | 0:37:12 | 0:37:19 | |
our productivity prospects are. But
it does require reconfiguring how we | 0:37:19 | 0:37:25 | |
think about the deficit. So is
Labour's plan credible if you | 0:37:25 | 0:37:31 | |
reconfigured the red box in the way
you have? I think their plan goes a | 0:37:31 | 0:37:35 | |
bit further from the manifesto. The
sense of borrowing and nationalising | 0:37:35 | 0:37:41 | |
major infrastructure, there is a
huge cost associated there. Which | 0:37:41 | 0:37:44 | |
they have not given us. Yes. That is
a problematic area to me. I am | 0:37:44 | 0:37:51 | |
describing something which is more
straightforward. Private firms are | 0:37:51 | 0:37:54 | |
not investing in part because public
investment has been slashed to less | 0:37:54 | 0:37:58 | |
than 2% of GDP. It used to be over
3% of GDP before the crisis. Sorry | 0:37:58 | 0:38:04 | |
telecoms company cannot put in a
better fibre line unless the | 0:38:04 | 0:38:08 | |
government gives them that basic
structure. We can't have better jobs | 0:38:08 | 0:38:11 | |
in the future unless there is more
investment in technical education. | 0:38:11 | 0:38:15 | |
That is why there is a good argument
for putting investment in human | 0:38:15 | 0:38:19 | |
capital, people as well as hard and
soft infrastructure, and that would | 0:38:19 | 0:38:23 | |
go a long way without going into
some of the more politically | 0:38:23 | 0:38:26 | |
disputed areas. But it is
interesting that Labour still trails | 0:38:26 | 0:38:33 | |
in terms of Corbyn and McDonnell
versus Hammond and May when it comes | 0:38:33 | 0:38:37 | |
to trust in the economy. There are
eight points behind. If you look at | 0:38:37 | 0:38:43 | |
under 50s, we now lead on the
economy, so we have seen a change in | 0:38:43 | 0:38:49 | |
perception. In 1997, we were
trailing on the economy and we still | 0:38:49 | 0:38:52 | |
won a landslide victory. Is that
what you are predicting? I wouldn't | 0:38:52 | 0:38:58 | |
go as far as that! Thank you both
very much. | 0:38:58 | 0:39:02 | |
Now, "Trust me, I'm an Economist" -
it's not a phrase I suppose my guest | 0:39:02 | 0:39:05 | |
of the day Linda Yueh utters
everyday. | 0:39:05 | 0:39:07 | |
And economists have had
a rough ride of it of late. | 0:39:07 | 0:39:10 | |
Blamed for not predicting
the financial crisis nine years ago, | 0:39:10 | 0:39:12 | |
a good number then got criticised
for scare-mongering over what might | 0:39:12 | 0:39:15 | |
happen after Brexit. | 0:39:15 | 0:39:16 | |
But is that fair? | 0:39:16 | 0:39:17 | |
Here's Ellie. | 0:39:17 | 0:39:23 | |
It was a question that baffled lots
of us, even the Queen, who famously | 0:39:23 | 0:39:28 | |
asked, how did no one predict the
financial crisis? She got an answer | 0:39:28 | 0:39:32 | |
of sorts, and then said what we were
all thinking. The people have got a | 0:39:32 | 0:39:41 | |
bit lax, have they? Maybe it wasn't
that simple. A bit like geologists | 0:39:41 | 0:39:47 | |
and earthquakes, we know where the
fault lines are, we have a good idea | 0:39:47 | 0:39:50 | |
of where the earthquake will happen,
but within a few years, we don't | 0:39:50 | 0:39:54 | |
know exactly when and which region
will be the most. It was like that | 0:39:54 | 0:39:59 | |
in the lead up to the financial
crisis. If you read any of the | 0:39:59 | 0:40:03 | |
journals and policy papers, it was
clear that we understood the risks. | 0:40:03 | 0:40:06 | |
We just didn't know exactly where
the earthquake hit. Today a woman | 0:40:06 | 0:40:14 | |
rang the BBC and said she heard
there was a hurricane on the way. | 0:40:14 | 0:40:17 | |
Don't worry, there isn't. Here is
another analogy. Economists can | 0:40:17 | 0:40:23 | |
forecast based on certain
conditions, but we shouldn't think | 0:40:23 | 0:40:26 | |
of them as predicting the future.
There is another problem too. The | 0:40:26 | 0:40:32 | |
essential fear of financial
economics is that you can't predict | 0:40:32 | 0:40:34 | |
things like the financial crisis
because it is in the nature of such | 0:40:34 | 0:40:38 | |
predictions that the result of
predicting it in a reliable way | 0:40:38 | 0:40:41 | |
would mean that it wouldn't happen.
So if I tell you the stock market is | 0:40:41 | 0:40:45 | |
going to drop by 20% tomorrow, then
you will not have your money in the | 0:40:45 | 0:40:49 | |
market tomorrow. So it will drop the
day before or the day before that, | 0:40:49 | 0:40:54 | |
so I will not be right and the crash
I predict will not happen. So is | 0:40:54 | 0:40:57 | |
that what happened after the EU
referendum? You have a situation | 0:40:57 | 0:41:02 | |
today where you have a Conservative
Chancellor and a Labour Chancellor | 0:41:02 | 0:41:06 | |
both saying to the country that
there will be a big hole in the | 0:41:06 | 0:41:10 | |
finances... Brexiteers called a
product fear, a consensus among | 0:41:10 | 0:41:13 | |
economics types including the then
Chancellor that Brexit and the vote | 0:41:13 | 0:41:18 | |
to leave would damage the British
economy. Economists overplayed their | 0:41:18 | 0:41:22 | |
hand significantly on Brexit in two
key ways. They claimed to be experts | 0:41:22 | 0:41:26 | |
about matters that they weren't
expert in, namely what some of the | 0:41:26 | 0:41:31 | |
political implications would be both
of staying in the EU and of leaving. | 0:41:31 | 0:41:34 | |
And secondly, when things didn't
play out as they expected, they | 0:41:34 | 0:41:39 | |
tried to suggest that that was
something to do with the economic | 0:41:39 | 0:41:41 | |
models that they were using instead
of taking on the chin that they had | 0:41:41 | 0:41:45 | |
got wrong what the economy believed
would be the long term implications. | 0:41:45 | 0:41:51 | |
Economics and predictions. That's
what this was about yesterday. The | 0:41:51 | 0:41:55 | |
Budget was full of forecasts and
policies based on forecasts. But | 0:41:55 | 0:41:59 | |
maybe if the politicians who don't
use economics properly. The choices | 0:41:59 | 0:42:05 | |
they make may not fully reflect the
consensus of economics. They may be | 0:42:05 | 0:42:09 | |
a result of their own private
preferences, or the result of the | 0:42:09 | 0:42:14 | |
way they have to confront their own
parties, or the political agenda in | 0:42:14 | 0:42:17 | |
front of them. It seems to me that
the best politicians are ones who | 0:42:17 | 0:42:21 | |
can understand what the science
says, whether it's on global warming | 0:42:21 | 0:42:24 | |
or smoking or the impact of
introducing trade costs, and | 0:42:24 | 0:42:30 | |
confront that and design policies
designed to deal with the real | 0:42:30 | 0:42:34 | |
risks. When it comes to predicting,
maybe it's not economics at fault, | 0:42:34 | 0:42:38 | |
but the economists themselves,
politicians and the public's | 0:42:38 | 0:42:43 | |
unpredictable behaviour that makes
it so difficult. | 0:42:43 | 0:42:46 | |
Joining us now is Joe Gladstone, | 0:42:46 | 0:42:47 | |
a behavioural economist
from University College London. | 0:42:47 | 0:42:53 | |
Why do economists keep getting it
wrong? One reason is that it is | 0:42:53 | 0:42:58 | |
difficult to predict the future with
economic models because economists | 0:42:58 | 0:43:01 | |
want to have a theory of everything.
They want to turn people into little | 0:43:01 | 0:43:05 | |
robots that always try and maximise
their own well-being. But you and I | 0:43:05 | 0:43:08 | |
know that that is not how people
behave. Humans are irrational. They | 0:43:08 | 0:43:13 | |
make mistakes, and if these models
don't take that into account, what | 0:43:13 | 0:43:16 | |
do they tell us? We know that humans
are not rational, so what is the | 0:43:16 | 0:43:22 | |
point of all this forecasting? I am
not sure sometimes. You know the | 0:43:22 | 0:43:27 | |
phrase that economic forecasting
exists to make astrology look | 0:43:27 | 0:43:29 | |
respectable! The problem with policy
is that you need to have some basis | 0:43:29 | 0:43:36 | |
to decide how the economy will be in
the future. There is a need to make | 0:43:36 | 0:43:41 | |
forecasts, but I don't like the
excessive reliance on forecasts. The | 0:43:41 | 0:43:44 | |
other thing I don't like about
forecasts generally is that they | 0:43:44 | 0:43:47 | |
rely too much on simple models of
how people, if you have a tax cut, | 0:43:47 | 0:43:53 | |
people will spend more, but that is
not true. A lot of people save if | 0:43:53 | 0:43:56 | |
they are struggling. Why would you
spend more even if you have a tax | 0:43:56 | 0:43:59 | |
cut? If you put that together, it
requires rethinking the basis of | 0:43:59 | 0:44:04 | |
economic forecasting, but also
accepting that the likes of the | 0:44:04 | 0:44:07 | |
Treasury and the OBR need something
to say the economy is expanding or | 0:44:07 | 0:44:13 | |
shrinking, but we should not put too
much stress on it being our future. | 0:44:13 | 0:44:16 | |
And it is not just people who don't
behave in a linear way. Markets | 0:44:16 | 0:44:21 | |
don't always function properly. Some
would say they haven't functioned | 0:44:21 | 0:44:24 | |
well at all over the last decade.
That is true. People and markets are | 0:44:24 | 0:44:30 | |
imperfect and these models are not
good at distinguishing between them. | 0:44:30 | 0:44:34 | |
If we could all predict the future
with some wheezy model, we would set | 0:44:34 | 0:44:38 | |
up a hedge funds and be a
billionaire next year. I would not | 0:44:38 | 0:44:41 | |
be sitting here. It is just that
complexity, the chaos of all these | 0:44:41 | 0:44:48 | |
individuals with their complex minds
and personalities and | 0:44:48 | 0:44:52 | |
individualisms, and then the market,
which is also complex and follow | 0:44:52 | 0:44:55 | |
normal ways of doing things. | 0:44:55 | 0:44:59 | |
People want to see evidence of what
policies are based on and there has | 0:44:59 | 0:45:03 | |
to be some forecasting. Do we help
the situation by criticising it and | 0:45:03 | 0:45:08 | |
dismissing and saying - all
forecasts are wrong, so I'm it never | 0:45:08 | 0:45:12 | |
going to believe anything you say or
does it make the job of economic | 0:45:12 | 0:45:16 | |
forecasting more difficult? First we
have to accept the world is | 0:45:16 | 0:45:19 | |
uncertain and we cannot know with a
huge degree of accuracy what is | 0:45:19 | 0:45:23 | |
going to happen in future, we have
to accept that. The best models we | 0:45:23 | 0:45:28 | |
have are probably from economists,
there is not an alternative, we | 0:45:28 | 0:45:33 | |
cannot go to psychologists or
sociologists and say - tell us what | 0:45:33 | 0:45:36 | |
the economy is going to do. We have
to accept the limitations of what we | 0:45:36 | 0:45:39 | |
have and figure out how you can
explain that to the public that the | 0:45:39 | 0:45:43 | |
world is uncertain and this model is
the best thing we have. We wouldn't | 0:45:43 | 0:45:47 | |
be better off without economic
forecasting. How could it be be made | 0:45:47 | 0:45:50 | |
better? ? I think one way it could
be made better is right now it tends | 0:45:50 | 0:45:55 | |
to extrapolate a lot from the past.
Almost every single model is saying | 0:45:55 | 0:46:00 | |
what happened in the past. If you
have not had a recession in the last | 0:46:00 | 0:46:06 | |
eight years you are unlikely to
predict one. So the first thing to | 0:46:06 | 0:46:11 | |
do is redress the reliance on
ex-traplation. Looking at Government | 0:46:11 | 0:46:17 | |
spending gives you a better in the
of US it is called of dynamic | 0:46:17 | 0:46:23 | |
scoring. You put it policy out and
cost tonne that basis. Do you need | 0:46:23 | 0:46:28 | |
more time? Do you have a tax cut or
rise, when policies come and you | 0:46:28 | 0:46:32 | |
have in place for one or two years,
is it long enough to say it it has | 0:46:32 | 0:46:37 | |
worked or failed It is tricky and
what I'm described also takes a lot | 0:46:37 | 0:46:42 | |
more preparation before you roll out
policies so you can decide on the | 0:46:42 | 0:46:47 | |
impact but politicians work on four
or five year cycles, and it | 0:46:47 | 0:46:53 | |
generally isn't a luxury they have.
And everybody says they have their | 0:46:53 | 0:46:56 | |
own economic expert to back up
whatever their policy is. You can | 0:46:56 | 0:47:01 | |
pretty well forecast and predict
whatever economics you like, because | 0:47:01 | 0:47:04 | |
there will be an economic expert to
back it up? There is varyings in | 0:47:04 | 0:47:06 | |
opinion and it is possible to find
an speshgts who is likely to support | 0:47:06 | 0:47:10 | |
your case. But at the same time,
there is Bert and worse science. | 0:47:10 | 0:47:14 | |
Things are moving forward there, a
gold standard in terms of these | 0:47:14 | 0:47:18 | |
field experiments or natural
experiments, so, it isn't like we | 0:47:18 | 0:47:20 | |
are just walking around in the dark.
There is the science out there. The | 0:47:20 | 0:47:23 | |
problem is that that science is
complicated. It is difficult to | 0:47:23 | 0:47:26 | |
explain to the public. It is
difficult to turn into a policy | 0:47:26 | 0:47:30 | |
sound bite and so, that's really the
problem we have in politicians using | 0:47:30 | 0:47:33 | |
this information. Thank you very
much. Well economics may be | 0:47:33 | 0:47:36 | |
difficult to forecast but I have to
say politics hasn't been that easy | 0:47:36 | 0:47:39 | |
to forecast either. | 0:47:39 | 0:47:49 | |
Is Germanys facing one of the worst
political crisis of its modern | 0:47:51 | 0:47:53 | |
history? | 0:47:53 | 0:47:55 | |
Angela Merkel's party have failed
to form a coalition. | 0:47:55 | 0:47:57 | |
Last weekend, efforts to forge
a three-way coalition | 0:47:57 | 0:47:59 | |
with the pro-business Free Democrats
and the Greens collapsed, | 0:47:59 | 0:48:01 | |
raising fears across Europe
of a prolonged leadership vacuum. | 0:48:01 | 0:48:08 | |
Today Germany's President has urged
the social Democrats. Led by former | 0:48:08 | 0:48:13 | |
EU president, Martin Schulz, to
reconsider their oppies to joining a | 0:48:13 | 0:48:17 | |
new grand coalition with their
Christian Democrat party. What are | 0:48:17 | 0:48:19 | |
the options for Germany now and what
impact does it have for the UK and | 0:48:19 | 0:48:23 | |
Brexit? | 0:48:23 | 0:48:28 | |
Joining me now are journalists,
John F Jungclaussen from Die Zeit | 0:48:28 | 0:48:31 | |
and Stefanie Bolzen from Die Welt. | 0:48:31 | 0:48:32 | |
How unpress departmented is the
situation in Germany now? It is | 0:48:32 | 0:48:38 | |
unprecedenteded. We haven't had this
kind of situation but there are ways | 0:48:38 | 0:48:41 | |
to deal with T the constitution is
very clear about the next step that | 0:48:41 | 0:48:45 | |
needs to be taken here. -- to deal
with it. Angela Merkel has suggested | 0:48:45 | 0:48:49 | |
she would rather have another
election. Well that's what she said, | 0:48:49 | 0:48:54 | |
than govern in a minority
government. How likely is it for new | 0:48:54 | 0:48:58 | |
elections? The is fluid. I wouldn't
bet on anything for the time being | 0:48:58 | 0:49:03 | |
but doesn't look like a new election
now. The reason being - for today, | 0:49:03 | 0:49:07 | |
tomorrow we could be in a different
situation. I like the caveat, in | 0:49:07 | 0:49:11 | |
temples predists. Dump -- in terms
of predictions. But Angela Merkel is | 0:49:11 | 0:49:21 | |
in a comfortable position because it
is the SPDs, they cannot risk | 0:49:21 | 0:49:26 | |
elections, because the German public
sees them as the one that is have to | 0:49:26 | 0:49:29 | |
move. If they don't come into a
co-laylies with Angela Merkel or | 0:49:29 | 0:49:34 | |
support a minority Government and
therefore trigger new elections they | 0:49:34 | 0:49:38 | |
will be hammered in 2018 That is
That's the dilemma for the SPD. Is | 0:49:38 | 0:49:44 | |
Angela Merkel really in a
comfortable position. This must have | 0:49:44 | 0:49:49 | |
come as a shock, she was said
tonight leader to ruffal trump. And | 0:49:49 | 0:49:57 | |
it hasn't happened? Yes -- to rival
Donald Trump. Well before the last | 0:49:57 | 0:50:03 | |
election her personal popularity
ratings were extraordinary. Over 52% | 0:50:03 | 0:50:06 | |
of the population favoured her as a
leader. Of course that was not | 0:50:06 | 0:50:10 | |
reflected in the outcome of the
election. But there is a great deal | 0:50:10 | 0:50:15 | |
of goodwill that people have and
that's why I think she would opt for | 0:50:15 | 0:50:19 | |
a new election, if she had it her
way. Right she's obviously banking | 0:50:19 | 0:50:24 | |
on the fact that people voted for
parties perhaps thinking she would | 0:50:24 | 0:50:28 | |
walk it, would put their vote behind
her but it is a massive gamble to go | 0:50:28 | 0:50:33 | |
for another election? It is, It is,
it is something unprecedented in | 0:50:33 | 0:50:38 | |
Germany. The Germans don't want T
they don't want instable. Thankfully | 0:50:38 | 0:50:43 | |
the economy is going well. Data
growth is coming, low unemployment | 0:50:43 | 0:50:46 | |
it is not the economic pressure for
the time being but talking about | 0:50:46 | 0:50:49 | |
Angela Merkel, she has been there
for 12 years now, it was always to | 0:50:49 | 0:50:53 | |
be expected sooner or later people
thought she ought to go. The | 0:50:53 | 0:50:56 | |
question is, when is she going and
there is no successor at the horizon | 0:50:56 | 0:51:00 | |
for the time being. Germany often
spends time putting coalitions | 0:51:00 | 0:51:05 | |
together and we don't quite have
that experience in this country. | 0:51:05 | 0:51:08 | |
Whep we had the coalition it
happened relatively quickly compared | 0:51:08 | 0:51:11 | |
to Germany. That does leave a bit of
a vacuum doesn't it, in terms of | 0:51:11 | 0:51:15 | |
Europe and when we look at Brexit,
what impact will it have? Well, I | 0:51:15 | 0:51:21 | |
think it is one thing one cannot
repeat often enough on British | 0:51:21 | 0:51:26 | |
television, is that Brexit is not on
top of the list of any German | 0:51:26 | 0:51:29 | |
Government. We've gathered that.
Good. I think what is more important | 0:51:29 | 0:51:38 | |
is issues that are coming up in
Europe next year, such as elections | 0:51:38 | 0:51:43 | |
in it lane the threat of the rising
-- Italy and the threat of the | 0:51:43 | 0:51:47 | |
rising populist right there. The
euro needs to be sorted out. There | 0:51:47 | 0:51:51 | |
is the issue of migrants who are
still drowning in the Mediterranean. | 0:51:51 | 0:51:55 | |
What Brexit has done to Europe, is
that Europe is coming closer | 0:51:55 | 0:51:59 | |
together. The 27 are closing ranks,
very successfully, I think. And | 0:51:59 | 0:52:05 | |
there are a lot of issues that need
sorting out and I think for those | 0:52:05 | 0:52:13 | |
issues, a weak government in Berlin
is a lot more difficult to sort out | 0:52:13 | 0:52:16 | |
than Brexit. I don't think Brexit
will be affected by this situation. | 0:52:16 | 0:52:23 | |
Except if the SPD under Martin
Schulz, the left-of-centre party | 0:52:23 | 0:52:27 | |
decide they want to get into a
coalition and there was to be a | 0:52:27 | 0:52:31 | |
grand coalition with Angela Merkel,
we know Martin Schulz is not a fan | 0:52:31 | 0:52:35 | |
of Brexit. Could he make things
difficult if he were part of a if | 0:52:35 | 0:52:39 | |
you tour German Government? At the
end of the day in Britain there is a | 0:52:39 | 0:52:44 | |
lot of delusion about how much would
change if the Liberal Democrats | 0:52:44 | 0:52:49 | |
pro-business would be in the
coalition. It always be a very prong | 0:52:49 | 0:52:54 | |
pro-European Government. It won't
make much of a difference. It won't | 0:52:54 | 0:52:57 | |
make a difference for the December
council, whether Angela Merkel is | 0:52:57 | 0:53:00 | |
there or not. It is not in the hands
of the Germans to say - OK, you pay | 0:53:00 | 0:53:04 | |
£10 billion less, it is not. Really?
But the Germans are so important. | 0:53:04 | 0:53:08 | |
There was much made of the
relationship at the same time | 0:53:08 | 0:53:12 | |
between David Cameron and Angela
Merkel and people thought she'd let | 0:53:12 | 0:53:14 | |
him down and there is still sort of
hope that Angela Merkel will be the | 0:53:14 | 0:53:17 | |
ones that will go over the heads of
everybody else and perhaps push | 0:53:17 | 0:53:20 | |
things along. When she's distracted
and it is not top of her list, has | 0:53:20 | 0:53:24 | |
it gone? A lot was made of it in
Britain, yes, but not so much in | 0:53:24 | 0:53:29 | |
Germany and Berlin or Brussels. Are
you worried about this dilemma, | 0:53:29 | 0:53:34 | |
really in Germany and this Ince
stability while -- instability while | 0:53:34 | 0:53:41 | |
she tries to decide for a coalition
or another election? Well I'm more | 0:53:41 | 0:53:49 | |
worried now. Well Michel Barnier,
the EU negotiator he has delegated | 0:53:49 | 0:53:56 | |
authority a mandate given to him to
negotiate so on aspects that Britain | 0:53:56 | 0:54:01 | |
would like something more bespoke,
whether around Northern Ireland or | 0:54:01 | 0:54:05 | |
Ireland or the divorce bill or trade
deals, the thought was he could get | 0:54:05 | 0:54:10 | |
that authority, perhaps, from Merkel
or from Macron and so people should | 0:54:10 | 0:54:13 | |
matter. But if it turns out that the
EU is really, a really unified | 0:54:13 | 0:54:20 | |
force, and it doesn't matter who is
actually in charge, I think that's | 0:54:20 | 0:54:23 | |
going to make the British position,
you know, harder to read. But | 0:54:23 | 0:54:29 | |
whatever point of the process you
look at. We are in the position | 0:54:29 | 0:54:32 | |
where Britain has to come up and pay
and agree on citizens' rights and | 0:54:32 | 0:54:37 | |
thor Northern Irish bored in phase 2
we might be in different territory | 0:54:37 | 0:54:42 | |
because national interests will kick
in and persons and people will | 0:54:42 | 0:54:44 | |
decide but that's not the point yet.
Right, thank you both very much. | 0:54:44 | 0:54:49 | |
So is it now "Funny Phil"? | 0:54:49 | 0:54:53 | |
That might be overstating it. | 0:54:53 | 0:54:55 | |
The Chancellor belied his
"Spreadsheet Phil" nickname | 0:54:55 | 0:54:57 | |
as he peppered his Budget statement
with a series of jokes | 0:54:57 | 0:55:00 | |
at the expense of everyone
from Theresa May and Michael Gove | 0:55:00 | 0:55:02 | |
to Jeremy Clarkson
and Lewis Hamilton. | 0:55:02 | 0:55:03 | |
I did take the precaution
of asking my right honourable friend | 0:55:07 | 0:55:10 | |
to bring a pack of cough sweets,
just in case. | 0:55:10 | 0:55:12 | |
LAUGHTER
just in case. | 0:55:12 | 0:55:15 | |
Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall first
report to the House on the economic | 0:55:19 | 0:55:23 | |
forecast of the independent OBR. | 0:55:23 | 0:55:24 | |
This is the bit with the long
"economicy" words in it. | 0:55:24 | 0:55:26 | |
LAUGHTER | 0:55:26 | 0:55:30 | |
Mr Speaker, if they carry
on like that, there will be plenty | 0:55:30 | 0:55:33 | |
of others join Kesa Dugdale
in saying, "I'm Labour, | 0:55:33 | 0:55:35 | |
get me out of here." | 0:55:35 | 0:55:45 | |
Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that
Jeremy Clarkson doesn't | 0:55:50 | 0:55:53 | |
like them, but there are many other
reasons to pursue this | 0:55:53 | 0:55:55 | |
technology, so today we step
up our support for it. | 0:55:55 | 0:55:58 | |
Sorry, Jeremy, but definitely not
the first time you've been | 0:55:58 | 0:56:00 | |
snubbed by Hammond and May. | 0:56:00 | 0:56:03 | |
More maths for everyone. | 0:56:03 | 0:56:04 | |
Mr Speaker, don't let anyone say
I don't know how to show | 0:56:04 | 0:56:07 | |
the nation a good time. | 0:56:07 | 0:56:08 | |
Joining us now is the the former
Labour media adviser | 0:56:08 | 0:56:10 | |
Ayesha Hazarika, who now works
as a stand up comedian | 0:56:10 | 0:56:13 | |
and Evening Standard columnist. | 0:56:13 | 0:56:14 | |
Someone shouted out - it's the way
you tell them, Phil. I suppose | 0:56:14 | 0:56:16 | |
delivery is everything. But actually
maybe from a low bar, some of the | 0:56:16 | 0:56:20 | |
jokes weren't bad? I'll say fair's
fair, the bar is low, I know that, I | 0:56:20 | 0:56:25 | |
used to write jokes for the House of
Commons, it is like you are limboing | 0:56:25 | 0:56:28 | |
underneath it. I thought he did
quite well. Remember the odds were | 0:56:28 | 0:56:32 | |
stacked against him. He had a
horrific lead into the Budget, | 0:56:32 | 0:56:35 | |
everyone saying it is the worst
Budget preparation in the history of | 0:56:35 | 0:56:38 | |
time, he is hopeless for the chop.
So you forget, the House of Commons' | 0:56:38 | 0:56:43 | |
Chamber is actually mainly really
dull T comes alive on a number of | 0:56:43 | 0:56:46 | |
occasions and Budget Day is one of
them. It becomes a stage. It becomes | 0:56:46 | 0:56:51 | |
a place of theatre and what people
want is good political lines but | 0:56:51 | 0:56:54 | |
they want to have a bit of a laugh
as well. They at least want their | 0:56:54 | 0:56:59 | |
principal to try to make jokes, you
know the phrase "God loves a trier." | 0:56:59 | 0:57:03 | |
It is true on Budget Day in the
House of Commons. How hard do you | 0:57:03 | 0:57:07 | |
think his joke writers had to work?
I would suspect they would've spent | 0:57:07 | 0:57:11 | |
a vast amount of time working on the
jokes. I actually got a nice text | 0:57:11 | 0:57:15 | |
from one of his advisors late last
night saying - gosh, you should have | 0:57:15 | 0:57:18 | |
seen the ones that didn't make the
cult. I'd love to have seen those, | 0:57:18 | 0:57:22 | |
actually. You could use them
yourself, actually Steady, on, Jo. | 0:57:22 | 0:57:26 | |
Sorry. In terms of delivery you can
only work with what you've got. Does | 0:57:26 | 0:57:30 | |
he deliver it well or not? Well,
look, he is not a natural gag | 0:57:30 | 0:57:37 | |
machine, not Phil Giggles Hammond
but the way he worked them well, the | 0:57:37 | 0:57:42 | |
maths jokes, the best way if you are
not funny is to be self-deprecating, | 0:57:42 | 0:57:48 | |
everybody thinks he is dull and
boring, so he used that. But | 0:57:48 | 0:57:51 | |
remember, jokes don't mask the truth
behind the politics. Do you think it | 0:57:51 | 0:57:55 | |
was a dissfraction the grim
backdrop? I think part of it must | 0:57:55 | 0:57:58 | |
have been. Because he delivered the
jokes pretty early on and I think a | 0:57:58 | 0:58:02 | |
lot of us were sitting there
watching thinking - wait, did he | 0:58:02 | 0:58:06 | |
downgrade z... He did it in about
one minute and then all talked | 0:58:06 | 0:58:11 | |
about. I suspect this is all part of
the delivery. We'll face a brighter | 0:58:11 | 0:58:16 | |
future, let's accept some of this
and maybe have a few giggles. I have | 0:58:16 | 0:58:21 | |
to say sometimes I groaned a bit.
What about the strep sill, I thought | 0:58:21 | 0:58:27 | |
it was too staged -- strepsil. It
was a bit laboured. Remember with | 0:58:27 | 0:58:36 | |
William Hague, it was a bit
laboured. | 0:58:36 | 0:58:39 | |
Time to find out the
answer to our quiz. | 0:58:39 | 0:58:41 | |
The question was, what important
milestone | 0:58:41 | 0:58:43 | |
has Shadow Education
Secretary Angela Rayner | 0:58:43 | 0:58:44 | |
just passed in her life? | 0:58:44 | 0:58:45 | |
Was it: She's just bought her first
house, she's got a degree, she's | 0:58:45 | 0:58:48 | |
passed her driving test or she's
become a grandmother? | 0:58:48 | 0:58:50 | |
So what's
the correct answer? | 0:58:50 | 0:58:52 | |
D. She has become a grandmother at
the grand-old age of 37. She's | 0:58:52 | 0:58:56 | |
Granegela. Is that what she wants to
be known? Yes. | 0:58:56 | 0:59:01 | |
That's all for today. | 0:59:01 | 0:59:02 | |
Thanks to our guests. | 0:59:02 | 0:59:05 |